Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I stand by what I said. NEITHER card matters at all. Why? Because DX10 is still unplayable at any reasonable resolution with reasonable FPS...PERIOD!
I don't care what card is cheap...I want a card that is faster than a card from last year...(read: 8800GTX overclocked).
Would you say that 1280x1024 is a reasonable resolution? Actually, this is a bit tougher than 14x9. Cause these guys seem to be getting pretty good playability under Vista.
Hard Forum Crysis 1280x1024 scores. All settings high, no AA
With a good CPU, and 8800GT's, even GTS's, average framerates look to be not as abysmal as you make it out to be. And this is beta.
I am seeing average framerates from the high 30's to mid 40's (36-45 fps) for 8800GT and up.
The GTS640 averages low to mid 30's.
These scores are with single cards. SLI is not functional yet (as per these results).
When the prices of the 8800GT's levels out (gouging calms down) you can pick up two of these for less than the current cost of a single 8800GTX if you have an SLI capable system.
That is extraordinarily nice deal. 2 8800GT's will be more than powerful enough for Crysis at 1650x1080, if single 8800GT's are playable with all settings high at 1280x1024. Could maybe even throw some AA at the game with dual cards.
Face it, Crysis is a beast, but that doesn't mean there aren't ways to play this game without breaking the bank. So,,,,, current technology graphics cards CAN play this game. Contrary to your findings.
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I stand by what I said. NEITHER card matters at all. Why? Because DX10 is still unplayable at any reasonable resolution with reasonable FPS...PERIOD!
I don't care what card is cheap...I want a card that is faster than a card from last year...(read: 8800GTX overclocked).
Would you say that 1280x1024 is a reasonable resolution? Actually, this is a bit tougher than 14x9. Cause these guys seem to be getting pretty good playability under Vista.
Hard Forum Crysis 1280x1024 scores. All settings high, no AA
With a good CPU, and 8800GT's, even GTS's, average framerates look to be not as abysmal as you make it out to be. And this is beta.
I am seeing average framerates from the high 30's to mid 40's (36-45 fps) for 8800GT and up.
The GTS640 averages low to mid 30's.
These scores are with single cards. SLI is not functional yet (as per these results).
When the prices of the 8800GT's levels out (gouging calms down) you can pick up two of these for less than the current cost of a single 8800GTX if you have an SLI capable system.
That is extraordinarily nice deal. 2 8800GT's will be more than powerful enough for Crysis at 1650x1080, if single 8800GT's are playable with all settings high at 1280x1024. Could maybe even throw some AA at the game with dual cards.
Face it, Crysis is a beast, but that doesn't mean there aren't ways to play this game without breaking the bank. So,,,,, current technology graphics cards CAN play this game. Contrary to your findings.
That is NOT on very high in DX10. Face it... DX10 and Crysis makes every single card out there get crap for fps. 1280x1024 is a low resolution these days. How many people run 22" and larger screens now with them being so cheap? Averaging 40fps at 1280x1024 is garbage. The min is 17 which means you have frames that are below playable.
Again, try it with Very High running DX10 and see...it is unplayable on an 8800Ultra why would an 8800gt be playable?
25fps averages...garbage
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I stand by what I said. NEITHER card matters at all. Why? Because DX10 is still unplayable at any reasonable resolution with reasonable FPS...PERIOD!
I don't care what card is cheap...I want a card that is faster than a card from last year...(read: 8800GTX overclocked).
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I stand by what I said. NEITHER card matters at all. Why? Because DX10 is still unplayable at any reasonable resolution with reasonable FPS...PERIOD!
I don't care what card is cheap...I want a card that is faster than a card from last year...(read: 8800GTX overclocked).
Would you say that 1280x1024 is a reasonable resolution? Actually, this is a bit tougher than 14x9. Cause these guys seem to be getting pretty good playability under Vista.
Hard Forum Crysis 1280x1024 scores. All settings high, no AA
With a good CPU, and 8800GT's, even GTS's, average framerates look to be not as abysmal as you make it out to be. And this is beta.
I am seeing average framerates from the high 30's to mid 40's (36-45 fps) for 8800GT and up.
The GTS640 averages low to mid 30's.
These scores are with single cards. SLI is not functional yet (as per these results).
When the prices of the 8800GT's levels out (gouging calms down) you can pick up two of these for less than the current cost of a single 8800GTX if you have an SLI capable system.
That is extraordinarily nice deal. 2 8800GT's will be more than powerful enough for Crysis at 1650x1080, if single 8800GT's are playable with all settings high at 1280x1024. Could maybe even throw some AA at the game with dual cards.
Face it, Crysis is a beast, but that doesn't mean there aren't ways to play this game without breaking the bank. So,,,,, current technology graphics cards CAN play this game. Contrary to your findings.
That is NOT on very high in DX10. Face it... DX10 and Crysis makes every single card out there get crap for fps. 1280x1024 is a low resolution these days. How many people run 22" and larger screens now with them being so cheap? Averaging 40fps at 1280x1024 is garbage. The min is 17 which means you have frames that are below playable.
Again, try it with Very High running DX10 and see...it is unplayable on an 8800Ultra why would an 8800gt be playable?
25fps averages...garbage
Ok, lets play the word game. I DID NOT SAY VERY HIGH. I said all settings high. No AA. Why do you need very high, when "high" looks outstanding? I just installed the crysis demo and have yet to really test it out. I'm running on XP so I'm DX9 limited.
And it's 36-45fps averages. Why are you not getting quotes right?
To me, crysis is a bit of a joke. I mean, I played this game already. It's called FarCry.
However, the vast majority of gamers seem to be drooling over it, so I'm the minority here.
Crysis is beta, and you have to take that into consideration as with ANY beta demo of any game. I look forward to see true SLI performance in the full retail version. 2x8800GT's would be just fine I would imagine.
I'm thinking of picking up a second 640 GTS for my rig. I need to wait a couple of weeks though when the prices fall.
Originally posted by: taltamir
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I stand by what I said. NEITHER card matters at all. Why? Because DX10 is still unplayable at any reasonable resolution with reasonable FPS...PERIOD!
I don't care what card is cheap...I want a card that is faster than a card from last year...(read: 8800GTX overclocked).
Which is all that really matters... I am sticking to my 7900 with which I can play DX9 games on high just fine (or DX10 games at DX9 mode with medium-low settings) until a card comes out where I can actually play DX10 games and get DX10 visuals (minimum high settings).
It doesn't matter how much it cost, its just not there, games made too sharp a jump in visual performance... and cards have yet to catch up.
Anyways, from what I hear the new AMD card will be a 55nm process... which is even less the G92. So that means they should make a lot more money per card AND make it cheaper then the GT at the same time... so if it is the same performance as their current top of the line card at a lower cost with higher profit margins it might just be a winner... Still I wouldn't buy it, I will wait another 6 monthes for a card that can play DX10 at reasonable resolutions.
Originally posted by: thilan29
Originally posted by: yacoub
Well let's look at the info we have available to use to make an educated guess:
We know that the last three Radeon series cards (X1800 X1900 and HD2900) were hot beasts with noisy cooling.
We know that this new one is supposed to be 55nm which should mean it runs cooler.
Apparently there was a lot of leakage on the 80nm process of the 2900 so if they don't run into that problem again then they should be fine. And at the very least X1800 and X1900 were very good performers...now if only RV670 will be as well.
Something is off...I find it hard to believe NVidia would "rush" the 8800GT launch, and ATI would squander away ANOTHER opportunity, especially after the rumours of a successful process jump. If the 2900 is EOL'd, I think RV670 should be ATIs top performer so it would be hard to imagine it being a lot slower than the 2900. They may be selling it cheaper because they CAN, since the chips are cheaper to make, so they can get some market share back.
I really hope they pull a rabbit out of a hat with RV670...they really need it.
Originally posted by: SolMiester
I thought the x1800 was a dog, they got it much better with the x1900 which was release 2months later at the despair of the ATI consumers!